What is periodic continence?

[newbetx]

To put absolutes on the marital act and say it cannot be denied just does not make sense to me. It is contradictory to life. Life is not absolute.

Let me try… I can’t remember if you had children, (I remember your Boxer’s name is Sir Oscar:blush: ) and you are female.

OK, so a mother has a child and the young child approaches and says, “Mom, could you please get me a drink of water?” and what does Mom do? Gets the child a drink of water and maybe gives them a hug or kiss as well. Why? Because she loves the child. And she feels good about it, too. She doesn’t say “No, because I don’t have to.”

Later the child is ill. The Mom is up all night trying to comfort the child. Maybe even taking the kid to the hospital even though it may be expensive. Why? Because she loves the child. And she feels good about it, too. She doesn’t say “No, I don’t have to.”

We do many, many things for a person out of love. We are willing to take risks of hurting ourselves and spend our time or our money for the love of another.

Now if the child becomes a teenager and the kid comes up and says. “Mom? Just gimmie 50 bucks so I can go have fun with my friends!” How likely will Mom fork over the money? Demanding is different from requesting, isn’t it? So if you are not being respected, would one be expected to respond positively? Here might be a good time to say “No, I don’t feel respected.”

OK, First assumption is that your husband obviously loves you and respects you. Now your husband requests sex. Did you just have it 20 min ago? A few days? A week? Depending on the man (or woman) “need” may be somewhat periodical. Emotional needs affect the desire and need as well. Does the request seem reasonable? (I’m talking about the typical marital relationship, not a low percentage “exception” for now, OK?) So if you love your husband, even though you might be tired or worried, what should you do? Love him as he loves you? And show that love through the senses God gave us to make that which is invisible, visible?

Sex is not to be dispensed as a way to control someone. Or withheld to show power. Or done only as often as the one that desires it the least “votes” for it. Or done only for the pleasure one gets from the act. That would be selfish. Love is not selfish. People can be. If so, that needs to be worked out. One of the best ways is to be loving, not controlling. So when one says “no,” one needs to know WHY it’s “No” and it can’t be “because I don’t have to.”

Does this make more sense?

Now there are all sorts of caveots… avoiding pregnancy (agreed ahead of time), health, emotional state. A loving and attentive husband should know and understand the state of his wife before considering asking. Being attentive to each other’s needs and emotional well being is an important aspect of marriage. Too often we forget that a spouse’s needs are most important to a healthy marriage.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Let me try… I can’t remember if you had children, (I remember your Boxer’s name is Sir Oscar:blush: ) and you are female.

OK, so a mother has a child and the young child approaches and says, “Mom, could you please get me a drink of water?” and what does Mom do? Gets the child a drink of water and maybe gives them a hug or kiss as well. Why? Because she loves the child. And she feels good about it, too. She doesn’t say “No, because I don’t have to.”

Later the child is ill. The Mom is up all night trying to comfort the child. Maybe even taking the kid to the hospital even though it may be expensive. Why? Because she loves the child. And she feels good about it, too. She doesn’t say “No, I don’t have to.”

We do many, many things for a person out of love. We are willing to take risks of hurting ourselves and spend our time or our money for the love of another.

Now if the child becomes a teenager and the kid comes up and says. “Mom? Just gimmie 50 bucks so I can go have fun with my friends!” How likely will Mom fork over the money? Demanding is different from requesting, isn’t it? So if you are not being respected, would one be expected to respond positively? Here might be a good time to say “No, I don’t feel respected.”

OK, First assumption is that your husband obviously loves you and respects you. Now your husband requests sex. Did you just have it 20 min ago? A few days? A week? Depending on the man (or woman) “need” may be somewhat periodical. Emotional needs affect the desire and need as well. Does the request seem reasonable? (I’m talking about the typical marital relationship, not a low percentage “exception” for now, OK?) So if you love your husband, even though you might be tired or worried, what should you do? Love him as he loves you? And show that love through the senses God gave us to make that which is invisible, visible?

Sex is not to be dispensed as a way to control someone. Or withheld to show power. Or done only as often as the one that desires it the least “votes” for it. Or done only for the pleasure one gets from the act. That would be selfish. Love is not selfish. People can be. If so, that needs to be worked out. One of the best ways is to be loving, not controlling. So when one says “no,” one needs to know WHY it’s “No” and it can’t be “because I don’t have to.”

Does this make more sense?

Now there are all sorts of caveots… avoiding pregnancy (agreed ahead of time), health, emotional state. A loving and attentive husband should know and understand the state of his wife before considering asking. Being attentive to each other’s needs and emotional well being is an important aspect of marriage. Too often we forget that a spouse’s needs are most important to a healthy marriage.

:clapping: wow, Newb, great post!

 

[SirOscar]

Now there are all sorts of caveots… avoiding pregnancy (agreed ahead of time), health, emotional state. A loving and attentive husband should know and understand the state of his wife before considering asking. Being attentive to each other’s needs and emotional well being is an important aspect of marriage. Too often we forget that a spouse’s needs are most important to a healthy marriage.

Oh, I certainly agree with you. Marriage, sex & family life is all about loving & do things out to love for each other not because we have to. We all do things out of love for our spouse & children. This is the ideal.

I cannot tell you the amount of times in therapy sessions that women say that their husbands do not understand their “issues” and demand things of them (not just sex) that scars them. It is a tough world for these women. Their husbands have no compassion for their spouse and cannot understand the psychological damage they cause each time they guilt their wifes into giving something of themselves that is not in them to give. The end result is “psychological rape”. This is the sad reality. Another sad reality, many husbands will not be part of the therapy their wifes are going through.

It is like little Deb said, sometimes they are okay, sometimes they are not. They want total intimacy (not just sex) with their husbands, most certainly they do, but sometimes they can’t and will withdraw for a time. Sometimes they can share love & intimacy with their husbands. It is an emotional, psychological roller coaster. To say perhaps “these women should not get married” because of their intimacy & sexual issues is totally absurd too. Sorry, just stating my opinion. Nothing could be better for them, as long as their husband is willing to work with them, not against them.

LittleDeb thank you for sharing your experience. I hope that you have been able to heal totally, and that if you are married, your husband has been compassionate & supportive in your healing.

Thank you all for your comments too.

 

[ghaybyers1]

Inability to perform the sex act is not denial of the rights of the spouse. If one spouse is incapable, then that is that. The other spouse is called to celibacy in that case.

The other spouse, in this situation, would always be the wife, correct? Interesting that in the case of a MAN being unable to perform the marital act (not unlike a woman who may have actually physically painful afteraffects from a rape) then the wife is called to celibacy, but in the other case where it is a woman who has been raped, the husband is not? Men are not wild creatures- they can be celibate just as well as women! (often I think better than women)

She needs psychological counseling. Perhaps she should not have married. BUT, she did marry and this means she included the right to intercourse at the time she consented.

I don’t disagree. However, should I marry, I will lightheartedly expect that my husband understand how certain situations, times of the year (oh yea, I am talking the month surrounding the anniversary) that it won’t necessarily be “Honey, since this is a sensitive issue for me, can we just abstain for a month, month and a half? You can say no, if you like!”

Uhhh… no. Perhaps it’s just the character of man I pray to marry, but I would rather life a single, completely chaste life, than have a husband that doesn’t respect me enough to figure out for himself that I don’t want it- not because I don’t desire to be unitive with him, but because I don’t want any unhappy thought to tarnish our unitive time together.

And perhaps this is a wrong way of thinking, but I am the type of person who longed more for emotional closeness with my ex-fiance than physical closeness. Perhaps this is just the type of person I am… but I wouldn’t want anything to come between my emotional and spiritual closeness with my spouse, even if it were to the detriment of our marital relations life. And I’d like it if my FH were the same.

A qualified yes here. The marital right cannot be denied. In the case of an individual act a person can refuse if they are ill, etc, on that day-- but as a whole they cannot deny permanently, indefinitely.

Why? Is this in the catechism (I’m asking honestly)?

Which is why it’s important that people understand what they are consenting to before they marry.

I agree! And I think that this applies to men who marry survivors of sexual violence as well! Perhaps chew on that for a while.

 

[1ke]

The other spouse, in this situation, would always be the wife, correct?

No. Not at all.

Interesting that in the case of a MAN being unable to perform the marital act (not unlike a woman who may have actually physically painful afteraffects from a rape) then the wife is called to celibacy, but in the other case where it is a woman who has been raped, the husband is not? Men are not wild creatures- they can be celibate just as well as women! (often I think better than women)

Every person is called to chastity in their state of life.

Why? Is this in the catechism (I’m asking honestly)?

From the bible:

*1 Corinthians 7: The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife,and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack
of self-control. *

The Catechism is not a comprehensive guide to every moral issue and every nuance of the faith. It is a summary of the teachings of the Church on faith and morals.

The section on Marriage in the Catechism says this:

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.”

It is referring to Familiaris Consortio, which says this:

Consequently, sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.

Also, Casti Connubii says this:

*19. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded.

1. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,” express not only a law of justice but of charity*

 

[ghaybyers1]

…would always be the wife…

To the best of my knowledge, erectile disfunction is a distinctly male issue. Seeing as a female… well, have nothing to be erect… with?!

On second thought, please no one fill me in if there is female ED… I don’t think I want to know!!! I’ll stay in my bubble! la la la la…

"The Catechism is not a comprehensive guide to every moral issue and every nuance of the faith. It is a summary of the teachings of the Church on faith and morals. "

This is a good point. Thank you for reminding me of this! Whenever I wonder about something, it’s my automatic response- “Look it up in teh catechism!” Mainly because… well, the catechism doesn’t lie, it doesn’t decieve, there’s no “interpretation” in it!

“The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.”

So wouldn’t it, then, go against this if the spouse were to give themselves because they know they should, and not because they want to? If there’s no “want to” in it, would they really be fully giving? They’d be sacrificing. Is that what this means?

 

[1ke]

To the best of my knowledge, erectile disfunction is a distinctly male issue. Seeing as a female… well, have nothing to be erect… with?!

On second thought, please no one fill me in if there is female ED… I don’t think I want to know!!! I’ll stay in my bubble! la la la la…

Inability to engage in intercoures is not limited to ED.

There are physical conditions which can make intercourse impossible for women.

Then also there are other conditions that can happen through disease or accident that render a spouse incapable-- paralysis, alzheimer’s, stroke, cancer, etc.

"The Catechism is not a comprehensive guide to every moral issue and every nuance of the faith. It is a summary of the teachings of the Church on faith and morals. "

This is a good point. Thank you for reminding me of this! Whenever I wonder about something, it’s my automatic response- “Look it up in teh catechism!” Mainly because… well, the catechism doesn’t lie, it doesn’t decieve, there’s no “interpretation” in it!

Certainly the Catechism is a great place to start. But, it is a summary and synthesis. We often have to go to the source documents from which the Catechism draws to get into the details.

 

[ghaybyers1]

What if there are situations where the woman is not satisfied sexually with her partner, as a result of an ED issue, and the husband does not recognize that it is a contributing factor the to his spouse not wanting sex anymore?

…

Sorry 1ke, this is what I was in referral to- you responded that the wife should be celibate. I was more commenting on the difference between your opinion (or at least the way it translated to text, you may not feel this way at all!) of men not being satisfied and women not being satisfied.

“If a woman can’t have sex because she’s been raped and physiologically scarred, she should have sex with her husband anyways (or never get married in the first place).
If a man can’t have sex because he’s physiologically unable to, his wife should be celibate (and NO mention of him not ever getting married)”

That’s how it read. Is that how you feel, or am I unclear on what you were saying?

 

[1ke]

Sorry 1ke, this is what I was in referral to- you responded that the wife should be celibate. I was more commenting on the difference between your opinion (or at least the way it translated to text, you may not feel this way at all!) of men not being satisfied and women not being satisfied.

“If a woman can’t have sex because she’s been raped and physiologically scarred, she should have sex with her husband anyways (or never get married in the first place).
If a man can’t have sex because he’s physiologically unable to, his wife should be celibate (and NO mention of him not ever getting married)”

That’s how it read. Is that how you feel, or am I unclear on what you were saying?

If **either **has a known impediment to completing the sexual act, permanent impotence or physiological condition, then they **cannot **marry. That is a canon law impediment.

It applies equally to a man.

 

[ghaybyers1]

If **either **has a known impediment to completing the sexual act, permanent impotence or physiological condition, then they **cannot **marry. That is a canon law impediment.
It applies equally to a man.

I am going to have to go research this.
If this, strictly speaking, is true, in the sense that “if you cannot consummate on demand” you CANNOT by cannon law be married…

well, I think then that someone may be beating me over the head with a hint towards a vocation for the single life!

 

[LJN21]

“If a woman can’t have sex because she’s been raped and physiologically scarred, she should have sex with her husband anyways (or never get married in the first place).
If a man can’t have sex because he’s physiologically unable to, his wife should be celibate (and NO mention of him not ever getting married)”

Why does this stuff always make the husband out to be the bad guy?!? Its always, “Oh poor wife what if they has reason to not have sex and the demands his right.” It is a two way street!! What If I go demand my right and hes just not in the mood. What if HE was abused and wasn’t emotionally able to have sex all the time and I demanded my right? It works both ways! If for some reason one spouse isn’t able to have sex or totally satisfy the other, regardless if its the wife or husband, they both have to deal with it and live chastely.

It does happen that sometimes the wife has a higher sex drive than the husband. I’ve lived that! There is nothing worse that not understand why your spouse doesn’t seem to want you as much as you want them. It talks constant communication about your feelings and your “sex life” to over come those feelings of rejection.

Our society today has totally taken all the meaning out of sex… All the promiscuity has totally stripped away the fact that sex important part of Marriage, so much so if you can’t have sex, you can’t get married!

 

[ghaybyers1]

**(a)**Why does this stuff always make the husband out to be the bad guy?!? Its always, “Oh poor wife what if they has reason to not have sex and the demands his right.” It is a two way street!!

**(b)**so much so if you can’t have sex, you can’t get married!

a) LJN- I was talking about my hypothetical self in this situation. No need to get riled at something I’ve said.

b) apparently, according to cannon law, if you can’t have sex, you CAN’T get married!!!

 

[LJN21]

I am going to have to go research this.
If this, strictly speaking, is true, in the sense that “if you cannot consummate on demand” you CANNOT by cannon law be married…

well, I think then that someone may be beating me over the head with a hint towards a vocation for the single life!

You totally misconstruing what is said.

If you can not consummate at all you may not marry. Consummate is the first act of intercourse that seals the vows given on the alter. The word “demand” was no where in that statement by 1ke.

Secondly, Do you really think if you found someone that loved you cared for you they would “demand” anything that would hurt you? You also seem to forget the part where YOUR the one that gets to choose who you marry. You are also the one that should make sure he understands BEFORE you marry him of your emotional suffering and MAKE SURE he knows that there may be periods of time when which sex may not be possible for you. Anyone that truly loves and respects you would never “demand” something that would hurt you.

 

[ghaybyers1]

Men are not wild creatures- they can be celibate just as well as women! (often I think better than women)

I don’t disagree. However, should I marry, I will lightheartedly expect that my husband understand how certain situations, times of the year (oh yea, I am talking the month surrounding the anniversary) (In referral to the anniversary of my sexual assault) that it won’t necessarily be “Honey, since this is a sensitive issue for me, can we just abstain for a month, month and a half? You can say no, if you like!”

Uhhh… no. *Perhaps it’s just the character of man I pray to marry, but I would rather life a single, completely chaste life, than have a husband that doesn’t respect me enough to figure out for himself that I don’t want it- not because I don’t desire to be unitive with him, but because I don’t want any unhappy thought to tarnish our unitive time together. *
And perhaps this is a wrong way of thinking, but I am the type of person who longed more for emotional closeness with my ex-fiance than physical closeness. Perhaps this is just the type of person I am… but I wouldn’t want anything to come between my emotional and spiritual closeness with my spouse, even if it were to the detriment of our marital relations life. And I’d like it if my FH were the same.

Just some excerpts of my pp’s on this thread. I don’t really think you’ve read them all that closely. (or maybe you have, and just didn’t understand what I was saying?!)

“You also seem to forget the part where YOUR the one that gets to choose who you marry. You are also the one that should make sure he understands BEFORE you marry him of your emotional suffering and MAKE SURE he knows that there may be periods of time when which sex may not be possible for you. Anyone that truly loves and respects you would never “demand” something that would hurt you.”

I am the one who gets to pick who I marry. I have already turned my back on an engagement because he did NOT fit the criterion of an understanding Christian husband. Believe me- I know.

 

[LJN21]

a) LJN- I was talking about my hypothetical self in this situation. No need to get riled at something I’ve said.

I stand by the statement. Its always about the woman. If the guy has issues its about how the womans going to have to deal with not being satisfied, if the wife doesn’t want sex the husband just has to get over it. You seem to be deliberately miss interpretating everything thats said to make it sound like in marriage the poor woman has to just take it form her mean evil husband who only likes seeing his wife in pain.

b) apparently, according to cannon law, if you can’t have sex, you CAN’T get married!!!

Yes, that is Cannon Law, because sex is PART of marriage! A major part at that. Its not a simple biological function, its is literal the act in which two married people become one flesh. If you can not ever consummate a Marriage there just simply isn’t one.

 

[1ke]

I am going to have to go research this.
If this, strictly speaking, is true, in the sense that “if you cannot consummate on demand” you CANNOT by cannon law be married…

well, I think then that someone may be beating me over the head with a hint towards a vocation for the single life!

I’m not sure what you mean by “consummate on demand”. Antecedent, pepetual impotence renders an attempt at marriage invalid.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

 

[SirOscar]

I think anybody can marry whom they choose to. I do not agree with the church’s teachings that it is limited to those who are able to consummate a marriage or want children. A man/woman with a form of ED or other sexual disfunction can marry for the same purposes a man in his 80 can marry. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused can marry. A woman/man who knows of their infertility can marry. A couple who knows they do not want to have children can marry.

I think it is wrong to put ones ability to have sex, or ability/want to have children as a requirement to marriage.

It is all about finding the compatible spouse. It is all about love and companionship. God did not create us to be solitary creatures.

Marriage is a two way street. All men are not evil, all women are not evil. All of these situations that are mentioned can most certainly go either way. It is just statistically clear that women are most likely targets for sexual crimes.

No two partners are ever matched completely in their desires. It is all about finding a balance.

I know this post is way off the thread, and I know this is not what the church teaches. I just don’t agree with it.

 

[ghaybyers1]

Okay, then therein lies my question:

After I was assaulted, I was told very bluntly by my doctors that sex… well, it just may not be fun for me. (scar tissue, etc, let’s just not get into it).

Obviously I’m not going to take my body out for a test run to find out! So if I literally only have sex ONCE does that mean I shouldn’t have gotten married?!

 

[1ke]

I think anybody can marry whom they choose to.

What you think isn’t relevant. What the Church teaches is relevant.

I do not agree with the church’s teachings that it is limited to those who are able to consummate a marriage or want children.

It is Christ’s teaching through his church. This is the purpose of marriage.

A man/woman with a form of ED or other sexual disfunction can marry for the same purposes a man in his 80 can marry. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused can marry.

If they are able to have sexual intercourse, yes, they can marry.

A woman/man who knows of their infertility can marry.

Infertility is not an impediment to a valid marriage, nor has anyone stated that it is.

A couple who knows they do not want to have children can marry.

Not so. A permanent intention against children renders a marriage invalid.

I think it is wrong to put ones ability to have sex, or ability/want to have children as a requirement to marriage.

It’s the PURPOSE of marriage. It is the essential element of marriage.

It is all about finding the compatible spouse. It is all about love and companionship. God did not create us to be solitary creatures.

That is one aspect, not the sole aspect. The two are inseparable: unitive AND procreative.

I know this post is way off the thread, and I know this is not what the church teaches. I just don’t agree with it.

I hope you’ll study the Church teaching on marriage and come to understand it more fully. Casti Connubii is a wonderful encyclical as is Familiaris Consortio.

 

[1ke]

After I was assaulted, I was told very bluntly by my doctors that sex… well, it just may not be fun for me. (scar tissue, etc, let’s just not get into it).

“Not fun” and “impossible” are not the same thing. The standard of canon law is quite high. Where there is doubt, the marriage can take place until/unless it is proven otherwise.

But, you and any potential spouse would need to undergo intense counseling.

Obviously I’m not going to take my body out for a test run to find out! So if I literally only have sex ONCE does that mean I shouldn’t have gotten married?!

Possibly. No one can answer definitively. If you spouse agrees-- remember mutual consent-- then you can live in continence. But, the sexual component of marriage is a central aspect.

I am very sorry for any physical and psychological trauma you encountered.

We are speaking in generalizations here, no one can speak to all aspects of your specific situation. You should seek counseling and medical opinion as to options. Any potential spouse would have to agree to a celibate marriage. That is a heroic virtue, not what most people intend going into marriage. And, again, if one or the other changes their mind the marital relations must be available and you must be able.

There is a difference between being *unable *to render the marriage debt and mutually *choosing *to forego it.

Perhaps there is a man out there who would want to marry and remain celibate with you. Who’s to say? But, if you meet a man and he intends a regular marriage with sexual relations you probably should not marry him until you are **sure **you can agree to that.